Faculty Senate
(to be considered for approval at 9/18/01 meeting of the Faculty Senate)FACULTY SENATE
UM-ST. LOUIS
April 24, 2001
4 p.m.
Student Government Chamber, Millennium Student Center
The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Faculty Senate Chairperson Lawrence Barton.
Minutes
Minutes from the previous meeting (held March 13, 2001) were approved as submitted.
Report from the Chairperson Dr. Lawrence Barton
The Chair reminded Senate members that at the March 13 meeting of the Faculty Senate, he presented statistics on the funding of public institutions of higher education in Missouri. The data
and a cover statement was sent to the Post-Dispatch, and a copy was included with the minutes of the Senate meeting. Receiving no response from the newspaper, the Chair initiated a conversation with
Ms. Christine Bertelson, Editor of the Editorial Page. At her suggestion, the materials were re-sent on April 19. At the same time, the Chair reported, copies of the materials were forwarded to President Pacheco and to Curator Connie Silverstein. Chair Barton remarked that it was unfortunate he was unable to engage the President in a discussion of the data at the last IFC meeting. He did learn, however, that there is some disagreement on the figures. The Chair defended his data, which were
taken from CBHE and UM websites. Funds for Extension and for the System were subtracted. The Chair said he would share his numbers with the Alumni Association and with students.
Chair Barton reported that there will be a 3-person group of legislators visiting institutions of higher education in Missouri to examine issues of underfunding. The study was commissioned as a result of data which suggest that Missouri Southern College and Missouri Western College are underfunded.
The Chair noted that the data for UM-St. Louis are worse than theirs--much worse if our
comprehensive collection of graduate and professional programs are taken into consideration. Chancellor Touhill invited the Chair to suggest names of faculty who might be among those selected
to meet with the group. In turn, the Chair invited recommendations from members of the Senate.
The ad hoc committee which was established to resolve
differences between the two proposals for tenure and promotion procedures
(one from the faculty committee last year, and one essentially written
by Jack Nelson) has completed its work. According to the Interim Vice
Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, Douglas Durand, the Legal Office is very pleased by the work
done by the committee. They say it is very complete and supports (as
opposed to contradicting) the Collected Rules and Regulations of the Board
of Curators. They congratulate us and offer help. Chair Barton noted
that his view is somewhat different. He believes that the procedures
in place prior to Dr. Nelson’s involvement in this matter were fine,
and that they had worked well for many years. There were, in his opinion,
some minor changes needed, especially in the calendar, but he believes
the committee went too far. Under the committee’s
-2-
version, departments will be required to do much more
work, and the new procedures do not particularly help the faculty member
under consideration. Chair Barton noted that he was a member of last
year’s
Appointments, Tenure, and Promotion Committee. He has discussed his view
with two other ATP members, and they agreed with him. At any rate, the
new procedures will stand. A copy of the document will be placed on the
web.
The Chair reported that a Faculty Meeting will be held during the first week in May. Faculty will receive by mail a referendum on bylaws amendments proposed by the Senate. Chair Barton urged faculty to vote, noting that the amendments will fail if less than a majority vote.
The Senate Chair and his faculty colleagues on the Budget and Planning Committee recommended that the mandated 4 percent salary increase be reduced to 3 percent in order to relieve the pressure of reallocation on our underfunded programs. At the recent meeting of the Intercampus Faculty Council, Vice President Lehmkuhle indicated that his calculations suggest there will be a 40 percent turnover in faculty members on the four campuses during the coming three years, and that this situation exists at other institutions, too. He reminded us how tight the market is in many areas and noted that when we begin to recruit faculty, we will need to remain competitive in the salaries we offer. President Pacheco added that the 4 percent salary adjustment was still the goal, since it has been part of his long-range plan, and especially in light of the year in which we all received $400. He said he has made a big point about faculty accountability these past two years. We have initiated Post Tenure Review, and he has talked about raising faculty performance standards. Thus, he believes that having done all this, it is incumbent on him to be able to reward faculty members for this. The President further suggested that this principle be maintained through the current financial exigency. The Chair said he finds no fault with the President’s logic and applauds Pacheco’s sentiments.
Chair Barton noted the increasing numbers of vacancies among administrative positions and rumors that others may be considering leaving. The ship, he said, is not sinking, only listing a little. Those who have made a commitment to the institution must work to right it and to steam ahead. There are, he commented, serious problems but also several good signs.
The Strategic Plan is still under discussion. Assembly members were invited to review it and send their reactions to Dr. Donald Driemeier, Deputy to the Chancellor.
The Board of Curators will hold its May meeting in St. Louis. The Steering Committee discussed how best to present the strengths of our faculty at the traditional breakfast, which is hosted by the Senate Chair.
Chair Barton reported that the Senate Office provided the Administrator Review Committee with names of all regular deans and vice chancellors. He invited the Committee to report on progress being made. The Chair said he sent the procedure suggested by the IFC for administrator review to our committee three months previously.
Chancellor Touhill requested that the Senate comment on the findings of the Student Fee Task Force. The Chair said he is unaware of the status of the report, but he knows that Vice Chancellor James
-3-
Krueger, a member of the Task Force, attended a meeting of the Admissions and Scholarship Committee on April 19. The Committee will react to the findings of the Task Force. Chair Barton presumed that they will have the authority to act on behalf of the Senate and Assembly.
It appears that some curriculum proposals may have been lost in the Office of Academic Affairs. The Chair said he was charged with investigating this matter, and he asked the College of Arts and Sciences to provide him with a list of all materials forwarded. To date, the Chair has received no cooperation from Arts and Sciences in spite of at least three requests for the information. Perhaps there is no problem after all, he speculated. At any rate, we have a fallback position in the event that we have some late materials to deal with because the Steering Committee is empowered to act on the Senate’s behalf on matters requiring action over the summer.
Regarding compensation, Dr. Paul Roth commented that a 3 percent raise barely covers inflation and that he doesn’t see a shred of planning at the top level.
Dr. Joseph Martinich inquired if faculty would be voting on the new tenure procedures. The Chair said the Administration has told faculty that they didn’t like what faculty came up with. Chancellor Touhill reported that she had met with ATP the previous day and that she has asked Interim Vice Chancellor Durand to meet with the Committee next week. The draft will go to the Academic Officers and then be distributed to the chairpersons. Dr. Martinich pressed the issue of input from the faculty of the individual units, and Dr. Susan Feigenbaum agreed. She noted, however, that if the proposed draft is not upheld, we will continue to dither over which document to use. Dr. R. Rocco Cottone also agreed with Dr. Martinich. Dr. Cottone remarked that the proposed document is far superior to the Nelson version, and that it represents an expedient decision based on needs.
Dr. Gail Ratcliff asked if a date has been set for the spring faculty meeting. Chancellor Touhill said it would be either May 7 or May 8.
Dr. Ratcliff inquired if President Pacheco understands that it will take more than money to retain faculty. The Chair said he conveys the message at every opportunity.
Dr. Mark Burkholder reasoned that if we are a research institution, we should have a research institution workload. Dr. Feigenbaum felt it would be useful to pull data together to show how much recruitment costs. Our most serious problem, she remarked, is compression.
Report from the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction – Dr. Nancy Gleason for Dean David Ganz (who was absent from the meeting)
Following a brief discussion, the Senate voted without dissent to approve a proposed new degree program, the Bachelor of Educational Studies. Thereafter, the Senate approved all curricular changes listed on the agenda. Note was taken of course additions, changes, and deletions, which were included as agenda items.
-4-
Report from the Chancellor – Chancellor Blanche Touhill
The Chancellor began her remarks by thanking Interim Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Graduate School Douglas Wartzok for his exemplary service to UM-St. Louis and especially for his leadership in securing for the campus a full 10-year accreditation.
Chancellor Touhill reported that the report of the Student Fee Task Force will be forwarded to the Committee on Recruitment, Admissions, Retention, and Student Financial Aid.
Report from the Intercampus Faculty Council – Dr. Joseph Martinich
(see attached)
Completing the business at hand, the Faculty Senate adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Pierce
Senate Secretary
(minutes written by Ms. Joan M. Arban, Faculty Senate Assistant)